It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rename the WoT Forum already!

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


When a terrorist blows up a subway, and he's part of a larger group that has itself declared war against that nation or people ... then it's an act of war. That's what radical islamic groups have done. THEY declared war. To acknowledge that war is the best course of action.




posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Seekerof
 


I'm giving you a star just for using the word "facetious"
Mhmm, we need more words like you. It. Whatever!

I sense you are being Sardonic?



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
When a terrorist blows up a subway, and he's part of a larger group that has itself declared war against that nation or people ... then it's an act of war.

But the action is still a criminal act... and I tend to be of the "school of thought" where a declaration of war is only valid when backed by a nation state. The drug cartels didn't declare war or commit terrorism, but we have a war on drugs that utilizes military assets in other countries.

The problem I see with this "war on ___" mentality, especially in the case of responding to radical terrorists with a huge military effort, is that it's like trying ride your property of gophers by carpet-bombing. The response is not commensurate with the reality of the problem.

If we strip away all the rhetoric and condense the problem of terrorism down to its essence, we find two generalizations that are the root cause: [1] a group of people are upset over the foreign policy or actions of another nation, [2] that group of people are further incited by that nation's massive over-response. Cause one creates the inspiration for terrorism, cause two creates more terrorists.

Invading countries and using billions of dollars of military assets in response to the actions of a few hundred criminals is not a reaction designed to end the problem. It's a reaction designed to enrich the finances of a few people and a few favored companies.


(typo fix)

[edit on 6-4-2009 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
I agree with SO and the fact that they are still using a dead man, as a bogey man to keep people in fear, only further proves the point.

The fact that Bin laden is on the ATS War on Terror folder is highly appropriate.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Excellent discussion!


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
But the action is still a criminal act...

Sure. So was Hitler going into Poland.
Acts of war can be criminal as well as acts of war.


I tend to be of the "school of thought" where a declaration of war is only valid when backed by a nation state.

If that's the way you want to look at it, then I can't argue with you.
But honestly - I see that as 'old globe' and not the way things are now.

I am of the 'school of thought' that any group that declares war against a soverign nation has engaged that nation in war and, if that group is deadly enough, that nation should respond to the act of war against it by using war tactics.

Example - the 'palestinians' don't have a country and Hamas isnt' the leadership of a nation, however they have declared war against Israel. It's a real war, not just a criminal undertaking.


it's ike trying ride your property of gophers by carpet-bombing. The response is not commensurate with the reality of the problem.

There are more then just 'a few hundred' terrorists and/or terrorist sympahtizers who are helping the terrorists. This is a world wide problem.


It's a reaction designed to enrich the finances of a few people and a few favored companies.

Oh sure. (Jim Marrs says it all perfectly in his book - Rule by Secrecy) But the fact is that these threats have been built and they are real. Just because the military reaction makes the stockholders of a few companies happy doesn't mean that we shouldn'tretaliate against the terrorists... that we shouldn't stop them before they hit us. They are real. The threat is real.

What we need to do is somehow stop those that are building the terrorists as well. Such as the stopping the Saudis before they had built the Wahabbis. That kind of thing.

How you fight these folks is beyond me. Education?
Let the truth be known? I have no idea ...

But still, the threats from the terrorists are now here and we can't just sit back and do nothing.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Invading countries and using billions of dollars of military assets in response to the actions of a few hundred criminals is not a reaction designed to end the problem. It's a reaction designed to enrich the finances of a few people and a few favored companies.


If this can be proven then you have a very strong case to make that the war on terrorism was/is itself a criminal action. A crime which includes the murder of thousands of people, theft and destruction of properties and assets and, ultimately the illegal invasion of sovereign nations for profit.

Good luck.


Personally I believe the war on terrorism particularly in Iraq was orchestrated by western military powers to first appease the Zionist Israeli regime, also to gain control over a middle eastern nation in close proximity to Iran which is going to be the next great conquest in this "war"

It isn't over until Iran has been defeated and, their oil flows under the control of western nations and companies.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
So was Hitler going into Poland.

That was an act of war. A nation-state invading another... not a small group of unaffiliated radicals.




Example - the 'palestinians' don't have a country and Hamas isnt' the leadership of a nation, however they have declared war against Israel. It's a real war, not just a criminal undertaking.

See items #1 and #2 above, now add a healthy dose of thousands of years of unending strife. There certainly are exceptions to every example, however, the under-siege mentality of Israel combined with the history of the region goes well beyond whoever is declaring war this decade.




There are more then just 'a few hundred' terrorists and/or terrorist sympahtizers who are helping the terrorists. This is a world wide problem.

Ah... those pesky "sympathizers." In my opinion, handy rhetoric.

Is it really that much more when you get right down into the trenches? Especially in the case of pre-9/11 numbers?

My item #1 above... good or bad, right or wrong, the relatively small number of radical terrorists we responding to perceived wrongs.

And to item #2 above... the ranks of the radical terrorists have grown exponentially due, in no small part, to the nature of the response.

What kind of world would we have today had a forceful and focused law-enforcement styled response quickly neutralized the core team that perpetrated the events of 9/11?

Ah... but wait... we're a group of conspiracy-minded people. We tend to believe there has been some level of complicity from "our side" in the events that sparked this "war on terrorism." A vague and undefined "war" that has no well-defined victory and by its very nature, generates more enemies the longer the "war" is waged. It's not a war, it's a machine.




But still, the threats from the terrorists are now here and we can't just sit back and do nothing.

Ah... a beautiful (if not unrealistic) conundrum. If we did nothing, would the threats still exist?



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Seekerof
 




the military is to deter, interdict, inhibit,


Ah, the pre-emptive stike doctrine. Though you use such nice, comforting words to describe it. What a way to treat your neighbors.

Why don't we just go ahead while we're at it and pre-emptively nuke the entire third world, and anyplace else where they wear funny hats or men wear what look like dresses? When we're done doing that, we can round up all the weirdos, freaks and pinkos and put 'em in camps and make 'em do the chicken.


Nice to see you back SeekerOf.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Why don't we just go ahead while we're at it and pre-emptively nuke the entire third world, and anyplace else where they wear funny hats or men wear what look like dresses? When we're done doing that, we can round up all the weirdos, freaks and pinkos and put 'em in camps and make 'em do the chicken.



Despite your rhetoric concerning the use of pre-emption, the doctrine of pre-emption pre-dates the Bush Administraton, as well as most of us here. As such, it was, is, and will remain a vaild doctrinal strategy. As it relates to "terrorism," it is better to pre-empt an act of terrorism before it happens than to sit, wait, and then respond to such an act after the fact.




Nice to see you back SeekerOf.


Other than a few, I hardly doubt my so-called return is welcome, but thank you anyways.


*edit for word correction.

[edit on 6-4-2009 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Seekerof
 


I consider pre-emption to be a slippery slope leading to totalitarianism and fascism.

How do we pre-empt? HUMINT. How do we obtain that information? It used to be by careful infiltration, but we don't have many of those assets in place anymore. I assume we are trying to rebuild them. That effort will take time, if it can work at all anymore. In the meantime, we've resorted to extraordinary rendition, followed up by highly questionable means of interrogation, aka torture. In the effort to pre-empt, we risk brecoming what we are fighting against, or worse. Not to mention creating more terrorists than we stop with the suspect information we obtain through "any means necessary."

I just finished watching "The Truth Project, Lesson 9; The State." It is clear to me that the State must not attempt to achieve its objectives by means that violate ethical and moral standards. In doing so, the State will eventually lose its mandate to rule.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
In the effort to pre-empt, we risk brecoming what we are fighting against, or worse. Not to mention creating more terrorists than we stop with the suspect information we obtain through "any means necessary."


So, your basically advocating that you would much rather act after the fact than act before?

I fully understand what you are saying but you need to understand a few things, as well. Despite your claim that the application of pre-emption risks creating "more" terrorists, whether pre-empted or not and no matter the before and after reaction(s), there is always a willing pool of would-be terrorists ready to be recruited.

No offense intended towards you, Icarus Rising, but pre-emption remains vital to both law enforcement and military ways and means of countering terrorism/terrorists, regardless of whether it increases the chances of breeding or creating more terrorists. You see, to the mind of a terrorist or would-be terrorist, you remove one so-called cause/reason for terrorism, it only gets replaced with another cause/reason. Therefore, you remove pre-emption from counter-terrorism efforts (i.e.: whether via law enforcement or military), terrorists will continue to breed or be created. The logic goes further than that:

- you remove poverty as a cause/reason, terrorism will still continue and terrorists will continue to breed and be created.

- you remove unemployment as a cause/motivation/reason, terrorism will still continue and terrorists will continue to breed and be created.

- you remove the lack of education or access to education as a cause/motivation/reason, terrorism will still continue and terrorists will continue to breed and be created.

- you remove religion as a cause/motivation/reason, terrorism will still continue and terrorists will continue to breed and be created.

- you remove U.S. foreign policy as a cause/motivation/reason, terrorism will still continue and terrorists will continue to breed and be created.

- you remove "the State" as a cause/motivation/reason, terrorism will still continue and terrorists will continue to breed and be created.

- you remove the United States from existence, terrorism will still continue and terrorists will continue to breed and be created.

- you remove the spread of democratic ideas, values, etc., Western culture and secularism, and remove 'the West' period as a cause/motivation/reason, terrorism will still continue and terrorists will continue to breed and be created.

- you remove the the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as a cause/motivation/reason, terrorism will still continue and terrorists will continue to breed and be created.

- you remove the so-called social cancer that is afflicting modern society, terrorism will still continue and terrorists will continue to breed and be created.

- you remove globalization as a cause/motivation/reason, terrorism will still continue and terrorists will continue to breed and be created.

- you have state's act withn moral and ethical means to counter terrorism or acts thereof, terrorism will still continue and terrorists will continue to breed and be created.

The logic of terrorism is simple: to cause as much mayhem, death, destruction, and fear as possible. Removing any one cause/motivation/reason or even removing all said and unsaid causes/motivations/reasons will not change anything within the mindset of a terrorist or terrorists. The removal of one cause/motivation/reason will invariably be replaced with another cause/motivation/reason.

Therefore, as stated already, pre-emption remains and will remain a valid counter-terrorism mechanism/tool, despite whether it breeds and/or creates more terrorists.

[edit on 6-4-2009 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Ah... a beautiful (if not unrealistic) conundrum. If we did nothing, would the threats still exist?


Most definately. To even remotely assume otherwise is ludicrous, especially given that "terrorism" has been around since antiquity.

Also see my post response to Icarus Rising; one cause/motivation/reason for today's acts of terrorism can and will be replaced by others, despite what "we" do. Therefore, indeed, the "threats" would still exist.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Most definately. To even remotely assume otherwise is ludicrous, especially given that "terrorism" has been around since antiquity.

Not to be argumentative... but there's not much news to be found about terrorist acts targeting Switzerland.


The "if we did nothing" reference was more focused on cause then effect. The groups who seek to commit terrorist actions against the US feel they've been wronged in one way or another by our foreign policy. Had we been an isolationist or neutral nation, that inspiration would not exist. However, there would be other issues as a result.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Not to be argumentative... but there's not much news to be found about terrorist acts targeting Switzerland.



Who wants to mess with Switzerland anyways?


More seriously though, I have read a number of valid academic papers on counter-terrorism in Europe that report or stipulate that radicalism, specifically Islamic radicalism, is increasing or on the rise in Switzerland. I cannot upload those papers due to their size nor are they available online, but perhaps you would take an article written by Craig Whitlock of the Washington Post as some degree of merit to what I have mentioned. Additionally, despite the dating of this find (1993), Albert A. Stahel wrote an insightful piece concerning Switzerland and terrorism.





The "if we did nothing" reference was more focused on cause then effect. The groups who seek to commit terrorist actions against the US feel they've been wronged in one way or another by our foreign policy. Had we been an isolationist or neutral nation, that inspiration would not exist.


From my personal persepctive, I would disagree, for varying reasons.
At any rate, I do respect your perspective on this and will leave it at that. I would add that the academic community has long argued 'for' and 'against' your perspective and mine.





However, there would be other issues as a result.


Agreed.

[edit on 6-4-2009 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
More seriously though, I have read a number of valid academic papers on counter-terrorism in Europe that report or stipulate that radicalism, specifically Islamic radicalism, is increasing or on the rise in Switzerland.


There are an increasing number of conspiracy theorists who see radicalized Islam as a distinctly American export. Even from a purely anecdotal standpoint, it's difficult to locate hints of the ultra-radical influences prior to US influence in the region.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
There are an increasing number of conspiracy theorists who see radicalized Islam as a distinctly American export. Even from a purely anecdotal standpoint, it's difficult to locate hints of the ultra-radical influences prior to US influence in the region.


That is interesting but it follows the argument(s) that Islamic radicalism, as with terrorism, is and solely is a product or byproduct of Americanism and past/present American/Western foreign policy. Again, though the argument(s) has the semblance of merit and validity, it is but one cause/motivation/reason.

Conversely, there are a number of theorists within the acedemic community who would contend otherwise, citing the "decline of Islam and Muslim society," which has resulted in or produced/fomented feelings of resentment toward the West, which is lead by the U.S. In other words, Islamic radicalism, extremism, militancy, and terrorism is/are more a product or byproduct of Islamic and Muslim governmental and societal failures than it is an "American export."


[edit on 6-4-2009 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Seekerof
 




The logic of terrorism is simple: to cause as much mayhem, death, destruction, and fear as possible. Removing any one cause/motivation/reason or even removing all said and unsaid causes/motivations/reasons will not change anything within the mindset of a terrorist or terrorists. The removal of one cause/motivation/reason will invariably be replaced with another cause/motivation/reason.


This is an assumption that has never been given the opportunity to be proven as fact or disproven as conjecture. It is easy to sit there and assume terrorism as a fait accompli because it is needed to justify your stance on pre-emption. How do you know terrorists want to be terrorists? I could be just as right in saying they would much rather be home with the family tending to flocks and herds and crops, or back in the city working for a living wage and future opportunity.

What about the military men and women out there on the point of the spear fighting the terrorist menace? Is there anything else they would rather be doing? I hope so. Is there anything else you would rather be doing? Is all of this an effort at self justification?



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
This is an assumption that has never been given the opportunity to be proven as fact or disproven as conjecture.


It is an assumption that has a broad range of academic and counter-terrorism analysts and experts consensus (i.e.: in the West, the U.S., in India, and Southeast Asia).





It is easy to sit there and assume terrorism as a fait accompli because it is needed to justify your stance on pre-emption.


Wrong, period. One only needs to study anti and counter-terrorism policies, stategies, and tactics to fully understand the difference between fait accompli and justifications for deterring, inhibiting, and interdicting acts of terrorism before they happen.





How do you know terrorists want to be terrorists?


How do you know that they do not?






I could be just as right in saying they would much rather be home with the family tending to flocks and herds and crops, or back in the city working for a living wage and future opportunity.


And in some cases, you would be quite correct.





What about the military men and women out there on the point of the spear fighting the terrorist menace? Is there anything else they would rather be doing? I hope so. Is there anything else you would rather be doing? Is all of this an effort at self justification?


An overwhelming majority of those military men and women would tell you that they most certainly would love to be home watching T.V., etc., but that they are doing that which they are because 1) it is their job; a job they willing do; 2) it allows you and other dissenters and second-guessers to sit at home, watch T.V., and spend your time posting up rhetorical responses as to why they should not be doing what they do.

[edit on 6-4-2009 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Seekerof
 


It has to have a broad range of consensus behind it in the West. There is a vested interest here in justifying the investment of capital and manpower and natural resources in a sustained conflict like this. That doesn't make it anything more than an assumption, albeit an attractive assumption to those with an agenda to support. Case history has only supplanted Biblical authority since Eliot brought evolutionary theory to Harvard Law School in the 1870s. Jurisprudence has been in steep decline ever since.

I'm not denying the situation for what it is. There is conflict in the world today. There is terrorism. My concern is the response, the pre-emptive response you endorse as the only viable means of eradicating it is actually counter-productive. Your deterence, interdiction, and inhibition tactics are, in reality, prolonging, perpetuating, and proliferating the conflict. What really bothers me is I think you are smart enough to know this and are therefore engaged in a false pretense.

I have nothing but admiration, respect, and support for the men and women in uniform put in harm's way as a result of this conflict. So much so that I question the mission they are being tasked with, and the objective behind it. I find the mission suspect, and the objective ill-defined. I question the motivations of the armchair jockeys pulling the strings behind the scenes to put these brave men and women in harm's way without any risk to themselves or theirs, and I find them specious.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join